The End of America's Well-Intentioned Empire?

Trump is a radical departure from the post-World War II consensus that united both Republicans and Democrats

The world was hugely interested in the U.S. presidential election—and everywhere people are wondering what the return of Donald Trump will mean in geopolitics. But is America interested in the world? Increasingly, and certainly judging by the inwardly focused campaign, not so much.

Which is a serious departure from the post-World War II consensus (you can see my full presentation on this at a conference today in Bucharest at the bottom of this article).

American voters were rarely much animated by foreign policy, but the political establishment certainly was. And if you hear speeches by presidents (see above or click here) from Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush and Barack Obama you will observe a striking bipartisan consensus about using American might to further democracy, freedom, and liberal values.

"Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations," said the Republican Eisenhower, in his 1961 farewell address. "We dream of a world where all are fed and charged with hope, and we will help to make it so," said the Democrat Lyndon Johnson, in 1967.

And here's Richard Nixon, a Republican who they're still kicking around, in his silent majority" speech in 1969: "Let historians not record that when America was the most powerful nation in the world, we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism."

They all believed in a U.S.-led world order focused on preventing conflicts and fostering economic stability through multilateral cooperation and the principles of democracy, collective security, and free trade.

Truman laid the foundations with the establishment of NATO in 1949. The creation of the United Nations and institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank was part of this effort, as was the Marshall Plan that helped to rebuild Europe in hopes of preventing the spread of communism through economic recovery and political stability. Eisenhower expanded on Truman's vision, emphasizing the importance of peace, progress, and human dignity, overseeing the solidification of NATO.

Kennedy established the Peace Corps and the Alliance for Progress in Latin America, both aligned with the same thing. Johnson's foreign policy argued that the civil rights movement at home gave the U.S. a greater moral authority abroad, allowing it to project democratic values with credibility.

It is especially interesting to note that the lack of major differences between the parties applied also to the Vietnam War, which was spectacularly divisive in America. But the divisions were along lines of class and generations—but not between the parties. Both Johnson and his Nixon felt a commitment to fight communism—but also wanted to end the war in some way that was not devastating to this cause.

Interestingly, Nixon in other areas also defied the idea that Republicans—like right-wingers and nationalists in many places—are somehow more inclined to war. His historic visit to China in 1972 marked a significant shift in the Cold War dynamic. The Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Bush the elder won not just the Cold War but the peace, believing in U.S.-led planetary progress. Not to be outdone, the younger Bush pledged that "we will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.

Of course, American actions have not always aligned with the fancy ideals. Influence was pursued in the name of containing communism all over the world during the Cold War, with the United States often engaging in coups and other morally dubious interventions that left a legacy of repression, instability, and resentment. But America always thought it was leading the world largely for good ends.

Obama probably put it best, in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech: "Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades ... not because we seek to impose our will (but) out of enlightened self-interest, because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity."

All of this—70 years of this American approach—came to a crashing thud with the election of Donald Trump in 2016. Trump's "America First" foreign policy marked a stark departure from decades of bipartisan support for international engagement.